MovieChat Forums > Upstairs Downstairs (2011) Discussion > SHOCK HORROR! Not the original series!

SHOCK HORROR! Not the original series!

posted 12 years ago by Chancery_Stone
29 replies | jump to latest

This thought goes out to all the endless drivelling, snivelling fools on here whining on and on and on about this "not being as good as...", "nothing like...", "not a patch on..", "not nearly as good", "so not the original series".

No, it isn't. It's an entirely new series, written with far more sophisticated scripts, far superior acting, sets that are not painted cardboard, and story-lines, sound and direction that are up to a high standard for modern audiences.

The original series of Upstairs Downstairs is a period piece: dated, stagey, melodramatic, domestic, occasionally fun, but more often unintentionally funny, and not great art, by any means. What you are talking about is nostalgia, not great writing.

For goodness sake grow up and move on. If you don't like the 'remake' series then go and write endless praise on the forum for the original series and leave the rest of us in peace.

"Chancery Stone - Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius."

[–] torrgran 12 years ago

Did you watch tonight's episode? Deadly dull. Oops sorry you don't like people expressing their opinions do you?

[–] Chancery_Stone 12 years ago

No, I didn't watch it. And why would I care if you thought it was dull? Express away.........

Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.

[–] torrgran 12 years ago

What Charm School did you attend? You flunked the exams. Never heard of your book either but what a marketing ploy, can't believe that you are the type of person who would watch a period drama, you seem so...........vulgar.

[–] Chancery_Stone 12 years ago

"Vulgar", "charm school", "type of person"?

I'm sorry, but you do know we are on an IMDB forum and not actually in an episode of Upstairs Downstairs, right?

Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.

[–] Maui3 12 years ago

For goodness sake grow up and move on. If you don't like the 'remake' series then go and write endless praise on the forum for the original series and leave the rest of us in peace.

Then they should've retitled it.

It doesn't capture the flavour or essence of the first, which was not sentimental but character driven (which is pivotal in great writing.)

I do not see any "sophisticated" scripts or plots in this at all. And "great art" is definitely subjective.

[–] Chancery_Stone 12 years ago

Why should they retitle it when it is meant to be a sequel? In fact, how would that even be possible; we've set a drama in the exact same setting as Upstairs Downstairs, and it's about life upstairs and downstairs, but we've given it a whole new name. Why would they do that? It's a TV series, not the Vatican. It's not a religion and it's not sacrosanct.

And I beg to differ about the first series not being sentimental. Every episode used to haul out the sentiment in spades. Whereas I'm not seeing a great deal of sentiment in the new series - except maybe for the Jewish orphan episode, and it's arguable that that is done purely to show the callous attitudes of the aristocracy to the rise of Nazism. It is very much character-driven since it devotes a great deal of time to exactly that, whereas Mrs Bridges character in the original series, for example, consisted pretty much of "'ere 'ave a cup of tea, love". Not exactly profound, especially over God knows how many series and episodes.

One of the reasons the original series was so popular is precisely because it wasn't character driven. Instead it offered rigid downstairs stereotypes and rigid upstairs stereotypes so that the audience had comforting predictability. It then threw in a 'monster of the week' into each episode while we watched the stereotypes do their stereotyped things. If it could top that off with some nostalgia and a good dose of sentiment then everybody went home happy. That may be a lot of things, but sophisticated isn't one of them.

Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.

[–] Maui3 12 years ago

Why should they retitle it when it is meant to be a sequel? In fact, how would that even be possible; we've set a drama in the exact same setting as Upstairs Downstairs, and it's about life upstairs and downstairs, but we've given it a whole new name. Why would they do that? It's a TV series, not the Vatican. It's not a religion and it's not sacrosanct.

Because it's not Star Wars 2. It's "The Phantom Menace" or "Empire Strikes Back".

[–] Chancery_Stone 12 years ago

And it's not Upstairs Downstairs 2 either. It's just Upstairs Downstairs. The reason Star Wars episodes have different names is because Lucas chose to give them to them. The Alien series is numbered, not named. It has no significance other than marketing.

Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.

[–] Maui3 12 years ago

Obviously you don't know anything about marketing if you don't think the title of a program is NOT significant.

And you mentioned sentimentality, a few times. Read your own posts.

[–] Chancery_Stone 12 years ago

Who said marketing is insignificant? Or that the title of a programme is insignificant? I said that titling had no artisitic significance in the case of Star Wars or the Alien franchise. It would speed things up tremendously if you stuck to the actual point under discussion, which is that it would be very bizarre to "retitle" a sequel to Upstairs Downstairs - both artistically and in marketing terms. Unless you are thinking of Upstairs Downstairs 2? In which case I would say - would that really change your opinion, or anyone else's, of the new series? I seriously doubt it.

And I answered your point on sentimentality. As brilliant as I am, there is no way to discuss your point about sentimentality without using the word "sentiment". If you can think of one, please feel free to share it with us all.

Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.

[–] Maui3 12 years ago

So you are saying the original wasn't good, in your estimation? Many many disagree with you (and probably why you don't sell too many books methinks)

Nothing whatsoever wrong with sentiment.

[–] Chancery_Stone 12 years ago

I'm saying the original is dated. And of interest as a curiosity. It's like old Doctor Who or Lost In Space - a nice exercise in nostalgia, not great art. Or even great televison, which was in its relative infancy then, particularly as a fiction-creating medium.

And you brought up sentiment, not me.

Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.

[–] Maui3 12 years ago

[–] Chancery_Stone 12 years ago

I'm sorry, I don't read "smiley."

Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.

[–] Pharaoh-in-de-Nile 12 years ago

"The original series of Upstairs Downstairs is a period piece: dated, stagey, melodramatic, domestic, occasionally fun, but more often unintentionally funny, and not great art, by any means. What you are talking about is nostalgia, not great writing."

"I'm saying the original is dated. And of interest as a curiosity. It's like old Doctor Who"

That is because TV is dumbed down and overhyped now so cretins automatically see old shows as bad and new shows as good; old shows as cheesy and new shows as epic. Actually the old 'Upstairs, Downstairs' was rarely unintentionally hilarious even though it may seem "dated" in our cretinous society.
As for old 'Doctor Who' it had its crappy eras (the Graham Williams era for one) but as a whole it was far less ridiculous and cheesy as the revival with its farting pigs, "ooh er missus" antics, annoying catchphrases and cartoon effects (at least the old show tried to actually build sets).

Here is a test for you; which is better the Granada 'Sherlock Holmes' series with Jeremy Brett or the current BBC one with Benedict Cumberbund?

Hyperbole is a strong force when it comes to TV today; everything is the best!

"Nothings gonna change my world!"

[–] Chancery_Stone 12 years ago

How, exactly, would something "seem "dated" in our cretinous society"? Dated means out of date. A thing either is or it isn't. To be riding a penny farthing is dated, because that mode of transport is out of date. Likewise, it wouldn't be cretinous to observe that a steam train is dated, or an ice house, or a stereoscope, or leeches. Do I need to go on?

The original Upstairs Downstairs made their costumes from Bri-nylon and they owed more to 70s styling than Edwardian. They used static cameras, rather than, for example, tracking or overhead shots, because they didn't have the technology to do otherwise. These things are dated. Likewise, the stagecraft itself was dated. Actors no longer declaim and shriek because they've learned not to act like stage actors. These things are of their period, i.e. dated. The original Upstairs Downstairs is dated because its old. It can't help it.

And how, in any shape manner or form, is your taste in Sherlock Holmes' characterisations a "test"? Because God appointed you TV taste arbiter? Maybe on Planet Impotent, but not in the real world.

Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.

[–] ContinentalOp 12 years ago

''How, exactly, would something "seem "dated" in our cretinous society"? Dated means out of date. A thing either is or it isn't.''

Because it isn't dated, maybe? Just to jump in here (because I am often in agreement with the Pharaoh), cretins see things as dated when they are timeless. So something can seem dated when cretins view them because they see anything old as dated (e.g. because it isn't ''slick'' or hyped to the extreme).

''Actors no longer declaim and shriek because they've learned not to act like stage actors. These things are of their period, i.e. dated. The original Upstairs Downstairs is dated because its old. It can't help it.''

Actors now are told to act in a very unrealistic, jerky (being they jerk around in speech) and overly-monotonous manner. The acting in 'Upstairs, Downstairs' is certainly more realistic than most of the non-acting in shows like the ''revived'' 'Doctor Who'.

''The original Upstairs Downstairs made their costumes from Bri-nylon and they owed more to 70s styling than Edwardian.''

Codswallop. The costuming (ignoring some anachronistic fabrics) was usually accurate. They didn't have a mix of eras such as the episode of new 'Doctor Who' set around Stonehenge, which featured golden age Romans with late-Roman helmets. Also most TV series and films made now are very unhistorical. Look at that awful Robin Hood show they made recently.

''And how, in any shape manner or form, is your taste in Sherlock Holmes' characterisations a "test"? Because God appointed you TV taste arbiter? ''

Well, like Pharaoh, I am interested to know whether you thought 'Sherlock' was greater than 'Sherlock Holmes' (with Jeremy Brett). It might not be important, but would you be willing to answer that question?

If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

[–] Chancery_Stone 12 years ago

I'm sorry, but you use the word cretin too often to engage with. If we were discussing cretinism I would accept it, but we're not, so I don't.

Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.

[–] ContinentalOp 12 years ago

It is more likely that you really have no good points. I believe I used the word ''cretin'' twice to explain a point that Pharaoh made; if you are that picky with certain words, then you are not worth my time either.

If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

[–] Chancery_Stone 12 years ago

"It is more likely that you really have no good points" says the man who repeated, word for the word, the comment made before his, right down to the insults, which he felt compelled to underline, just for extra subtlety.

Forgive me if I am not crushed by not being thought worthy of that.

Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.

[–] ContinentalOp 12 years ago

Wow, you are dumb. I guess that you have never heard of quoting nor explaining what the posts of others' obviously mean.

If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

[–] Chancery_Stone 12 years ago

Well, I suppose at least you thought up "dumb" on your own.

Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.

[–] rob-949 12 years ago

"No, it isn't. It's an entirely new series, written with far more sophisticated scripts, far superior acting, sets that are not painted cardboard, and story-lines, sound and direction that are up to a high standard for modern audiences."

Are you on crack? I stopped reading right here. The new version is very poorly done in comparison to the old with the exception of the sets. End of story. Step away from the crack pipe.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] torrgran 12 years ago

Honestly now udfan93, did you HONESTLY enjoy the first episode? Maybe it suffered from the wonderful Call the Midwife being broadcast right before it, maybe next week it will be better (hope so for the fans here) It won't have CTM as a shield next week, the Beeb hoped that the CTM viewers would be the same demographic as UD and that they would inherit their 9m viewers. That backfired because the last episode of CTM was so good and then this dreary drama followed, 3m left and then 1m over the course of the programme. I think the honest truth is, I don't like the cast with the exception of the butler and Claire Foy. But you know, it will probably pick up, fans are hoping a 3rd series will be commissioned and that is dependent on the ratings.

[–] Chancery_Stone 12 years ago

You "stopped reading right there"? I'm sorry, but why should anyone respect the opinion of someone who can't finish a 150 word comment?

Author of The DANNY Quadrilogy, and all-around genius.

[–] obliviousblues 11 years ago

I just finished the first season of Upstairs, Downstairs and I absolutely loved it. I didn't think that this version would get as much hate as it has, and I'm now interested in checking out the original just to see why all the fuss. It seems a lot of people went in this show with their mind made up that they were going to hate it, and didn't bother to give it a real chance.

Although I have to admit it's a bit like watching the hardcore Sherlock fans go onto the Elementary boards and insult the intelligence of Elementary fans just because they prefer Elementary over Sherlock. If somebody likes something, you're obviously not going to change their mind.

[–] eppycalhoun 11 years ago

Although I have to admit it's a bit like watching the hardcore Sherlock fans go onto the Elementary boards and insult the intelligence of Elementary fans just because they prefer Elementary over Sherlock. If somebody likes something, you're obviously not going to change their mind.

Agreed. Plus there are fans of Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes from the 1980s who thrashed both "Sherlock" and "Elementary" as not reflecting how Arthur Conan Doyle characterized Holmes.

[–] Lias 11 years ago

The original was better - in the first season, and into the second. Both series fall into the trap of creating a problem and solving it too quickly. But better writing and acting throughout the original. "A Change of Scene" is the best episode of either show. A "stand alone" episode.

They made an effort to parallel the original. Same house, new war. But it was very studied and forced. "The maid died and she's Jewish and has a daughter? I shall save her!" Much more convincing when the maid had the son's baby and they were kind of glad the baby died.